United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
DENNIS A. BUFORD, JR., Plaintiff,
STEVEN BOST, Defendant.
Stadtmueller U.S. District Judge.
who is incarcerated at Green Bay Correctional Institution
(“GBCI”), filed a pro se complaint under
42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that his civil rights were
violated. (Docket #1). The Court screened Plaintiff's
complaint and allowed him to proceed on a claim of deliberate
indifference to his serious medical needs, in violation of
the Eighth Amendment, against Defendant Steven Bost
(“Bost”), a nurse at GBCI. (Docket #10 at 5).
Plaintiff then filed a motion for an extension of his
deadline to file an amended complaint, and the Court granted
his request. (Docket #15 and #16). Plaintiff subsequently
filed an amended complaint. (Docket #17). The Court will
screen it pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). All of the
standards applicable to screening announced in the
Court's original screening order apply here. (Docket #10
amended complaint is premised on the same operative facts as
was his original complaint, but he seeks to add three
additional defendants: Jean Lutsey (“Lutsey”),
Sgt. Segerstrom (“Segerstrom”), and C.O. Jensen
(“Jensen”). In short, Plaintiff alleges that on
March 10, 2017, he was playing basketball during recreation
time at GBCI and he fell on his hand. (Docket #17 at 2).
Several officers responded and determined that the Health
Services Unit (“HSU”) should be contacted.
Id. C.O. Everson placed the call and Bost answered.
Id. Bost stated that the injury did not sound
“life threatening” and instructed that ice be
applied and that Plaintiff submit an HSU request.
Id. Another officer, Recreation Leader Bernarde,
also contacted Bost at about 9:10 p.m. Id. In
response to this call, Bost said he would not see Plaintiff
because it was after hours. Plaintiff believes, based on
information he gleaned from a shift supervisor, that
“after hours” for the HSU begins at 10:00 p.m.
back at his dorm, Plaintiff informed Segerstrom of his
injury, who apparently also called Bost and was told that
because Plaintiff's injury was not an emergency, he would
not be seen. Id. Plaintiff's father, who is also
incarcerated at GBCI, also asked Segerstrom for help, but to
no avail. Id. at 3. Plaintiff's father then
administered “first aid” to Plaintiff.
Id. Plaintiff asked Jensen, a correctional officer,
to contact a supervisor. Id. Jensen said that he
notified a supervisor, but Plaintiff believes this did not
happen. Id. Plaintiff claims that a third-shift
supervisor has the authority to call in nursing staff or send
an inmate to the emergency room. Id.
next day, Plaintiff woke up in extreme pain with obvious
swelling to his injured left hand. Id. He contacted
Sgt. Francios (“Francios”), who then called the
HSU. Id. Someone in the HSU told Francios that
Plaintiff would have to submit a “blue slip” in
order to be seen. Id. Bost had not left a note for
anyone in the HSU about Plaintiff's injury the prior
evening. Id. Plaintiff's father talked to
Francios, who then permitted Plaintiff to be escorted to the
Plaintiff's arrival in the HSU, R.N. Shane Garland
triaged his injury and determined that he should be sent to
St. Vincent Hospital. Id. Plaintiff was taken to the
hospital, where an x-ray showed that his hand was broken.
Id. Plaintiff's hand was placed in a splint and
Plaintiff was further examined by someone in “ortho
surgery.” Id. Plaintiff ultimately made
multiple trips to the ortho department (possibly at a
different hospital). Id.
point, presumably after all of this, Plaintiff contacted
Lutsey, an HSU supervisor, to ask why Plaintiff was refused
treatment on the night of March 10. Id. Lutsey
offered no reason. Id. Plaintiff does not explain
how or whether Lutsey was involved in the events underlying
will be permitted to add Jensen as a defendant in this case
on an Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to
his serious medical need. Plaintiff's allegations that
Jensen knew about Plaintiff's severely injured hand and
refused to call a supervisor, who Jensen knew could have sent
Plaintiff to the hospital, is sufficient to satisfy the
objective and subjective components of a deliberate
indifference claim. See Gayton v. McCoy, 593 F.3d
610, 620 (7th Cir. 2010).
will not be permitted to proceed against Segerstrom or
Lutsey. As to Segerstrom, he knew about Plaintiff's
injury, called the HSU, and relied on Bost's medical
assessment that Plaintiff could wait until the next day to be
seen by medical personnel. These allegations do not amount to
an Eighth Amendment claim. See Hayes v. Snyder, 546
F.3d 516, 527 (7th Cir. 2008) (Non-medical prison officials
“are entitled to defer to the professional judgment of
the facility's medical officials on questions of
prisoners' medical care[.]”).
Lutsey, Plaintiff seems to base his claim against her on the
fact that she is the supervisor of the HSU and should
therefore be responsible for the misconduct of HSU staff. But
the doctrine of respondeat superior cannot be used
to hold a supervisor liable for conduct of a subordinate that
violates a plaintiff's constitutional rights. Chavez
v. Illinois State Police, 251 F.3d 612, 651 (7th Cir.
2001). Supervisory liability in a Section 1983 action is
appropriate only “if the supervisor, with knowledge of
the subordinate's conduct, approves of the conduct and
the basis for it.” Id. (quotation and internal
marks omitted). That is, “to be liable for the conduct
of subordinates, a supervisor must be personally involved in
that conduct.” Id. (quotation and internal
marks omitted). Plaintiff has not alleged that Lutsey was
personally involved in the events surrounding his delayed
medical care. In fact, he has alleged the opposite; he
alleged that Jensen should have notified a
supervisor on the night of March 10 but did not.
Plaintiff shall be permitted to proceed on a claim of
deliberate indifference to his serious medical need, in
violation of the Eighth Amendment, against Defendants Bost
and Jensen. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
the addition of Jensen as a defendant, all parties will be
afforded a small amount of additional time in which to
conduct discovery and file dispositive motions. The
scheduling order, (Docket #14), will be modified to reflect a
discovery cutoff date of May 1, 2019 and a dispositive motion
deadline of June 10, 2019. In light of this, Defendant
Bost's recently-filed motion for an extension of the
March 1, 2019 discovery deadline, (Docket #21), will be
denied as moot.
IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's amended complaint
(Docket #17) shall be his ...